In this presentation I examine writing in the Russian-language classroom in light of the changes in attitudes over the last twenty years. Researchers embraced the notion of writing as a cognitive process, delayed, timed, and recursive (Hughey, 1983; Raimes, 1987; Friedlander, 1990; Krapels, 1990; Swaffer, 1991). Researchers advocating this view maintain that the teacher should evaluate the process as a whole, not just the end result. The ability to communicate ideas is more important than surface accuracy, especially given evidence that explicit attention to surface errors is ineffective. (Semke, 1984; Jones, 1985; Dvorak, 1986; Cumming, 1989; Kepner, 1991, Scarcella and Oxford, 1992).
However, the process-oriented, communicative approach to writing conflicts with a proficiency-oriented teaching, which places the end result front and center. “Real world” writing (beyond short notes and personal correspondence) demands strict adherence to surface convention. Therefore, while students of Russian can attain some working proficiency in speaking, reading, and listening, i.e., ACTFL Advanced, whether they can attain usable proficiency in writing over the course of a normal academic program should be a matter of concern.
Given the dichotomy between writing as process and product, we would do best to look at writing not as a monolithic skill, but as several different skills, each with its own goal:
1. Writing as product (e.g., producing a usable business note based on templates).
2. Writing as process (global approach to writing based on read texts, as well as in academic compositions, diaries, e-mail exchanges).
3. Writing as preparation for paragraphed speech (the creation of hothouse specials).
4. Writing as a support skill for grammar (grammar exercises).
The presentation ends with suggestions for integrating the first three items into a Russian-language program from first through fourth year in an academic program.
Cumming, Alister. 1989. “Writing Expertise and Second-Language Proficiency.” Language Learning 39:81–141.
Dvorak, Tricia R. 1986. “Writing in the Foreign Language.” In: Barbara H. Wing (ed.). Listening, Reading, Writing: Analysis and Application. Middlebury, VT: Northeast Conference, 145–167.
Eisterhold, Joan Carson. 1990. “Reading-Writing Connections: Toward a Description for Second Language Learners.” In: Barbara Kroll (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 88–101.
Friedlander, Alexander. 1990. “Composing in English: Effects of First Language on Writing in English as a Second Language.” In: Barbara Kroll (ed.). Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 109–125.
Hughey, Jane B., Deanna R. Wormuth, V. Faye Hartfiel, and Holly L. Jacobs. 1983. Teaching ESL Composition: Principles and Techniques. Cambridge, MA: Newbury House.
Jones, Stan. 1985. “Problems with Monitor Use in Second Language Composing.” Mike Rose (ed.). When a Writer Can’t Write: Studies on Writer’s Block and Other Composing Process Problems. New York: Guilford Press, 96–118.
Kepner, Christine Goring. 1991. “An Experiment in the Relationship of Types of Written Feedback to the Development of Second-Language Writing Skills.” Modern Language Journal 75, 305–313.
Krapels, Alexandra Rowe. 1990. “An Overview of Second Language Writing Process Research.” In: Barbara Kroll (ed.). Second Language Writing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 37–56.
Raimes, Ann. 1983. “Anguish as a Second Language? Remedies for Composition Teachers.” Aviva Freedman, Ian Pringle, and Janice Yalden (eds.). Learning to Write: First Language/Second Language. London: Longman, 1983, 258–272.
Scarcella, Robin C. and Rebecca L. Oxford. 1992. The Tapestry of Language Learning: The Individual in the Communicative Classroom. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
Semke, Harriet D. 1984. “Effects of the Red Pen.” Foreign Language Annals 17, 195–202.
Swaffar, Janet K. 1991. “Language Learning is More than Learning Language: Rethinking Reading and Writing Tasks in Textbooks for Beginning Language Study.” In: Barbara F. Freed (ed.). Foreign Language Acquisition Research and the Classroom. Lexington, MA: Heath, 252–279.